Legal Cases

The State may constitutionally limit the innocence-related evidence that a defendant can introduce at a new sentencing proceeding to only that evidence presented at the original trial.

The Supreme Court held that the Tax Court's practice of withholding special trial judges' reports from the public and excluding them from the record on appeal violates the principles of due process and transparency in judicial proceedings.

State laws that allow in-state wineries to sell wine directly to consumers while prohibiting or restricting out-of-state wineries from doing the same violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and such discrimination is not permitted by the Twenty-first Amendment.

A plaintiff who lacks any rights under an existing contractual relationship with the defendant, and who has not been prevented from entering into such a contractual relationship, may not bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

The Solomon Amendment does not violate the First Amendment rights of law schools because it does not compel them to express any particular message, but rather conditions federal funding on providing military recruiters equal access to students, thereby allowing the government to promote its interest in military recruitment.

Prisoners may bring actions under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to challenge the constitutionality of state parole procedures, rather than being required to seek relief exclusively through federal habeas corpus statutes.

Prosecutors' use of peremptory strikes in jury selection based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a defendant is entitled to relief if they can demonstrate that such discrimination occurred.

A federal court must defer to reasonable state-court determinations of fact in a habeas corpus case and cannot set aside those determinations based on its own interpretations of the record.

The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits a trial judge from reconsidering an acquittal once it has been formally entered, even if the judge believes that the initial acquittal was erroneous.

Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) can be exempted from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E), allowing debtors to retain these assets rather than having them divided among creditors.

The jury instructions in the prosecution of Arthur Andersen LLP for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B) failed to properly convey the elements required for a conviction of "corrupt persuasion," leading to the reversal of the conviction.

The Court of Appeals abused its discretion by withholding its mandate for more than five months after the denial of certiorari without entering a formal order.

The flat $100 fee imposed by Michigan on trucks engaged in intrastate commercial hauling does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, as it is regulatory in nature, applies evenhandedly, and does not impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate trade.

The federal statute regarding interstate commerce pre-empts state registration requirements only if they impose an unreasonable burden, and the Michigan law imposing a $100 annual fee on trucks operating entirely in interstate commerce does not constitute such a burden, thus it is not pre-empted by federal law.

The burden of proof for a defense of duress in a criminal trial lies with the defendant to establish the defense by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than requiring the government to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require the appointment of counsel for defendants convicted on their pleas who seek access to first-tier review in the Michigan Court of Appeals.

A motion for relief from a judgment in a habeas corpus case, filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), is subject to the restrictions that apply to “second or successive” habeas corpus petitions under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury, as established by the emergency aid doctrine.

A prior conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance does not qualify as a "controlled substance offense" under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, as it does not involve intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.

The Supreme Court held that the exemption from patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1) applies to uses of patented inventions in preclinical research, even if the results are not ultimately included in a submission to the FDA, as long as those uses are reasonably related to the development and submission of information required by federal law regulating drugs.